Hi James;
I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise objections
from other members of this board.
'>Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
pre-bias.'
It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I maintain
that the asymetry exists in the sense that my movement in spatial dimensions
is second nature, movement in time - other than the apparantly inevitable
next step forward - is theoretical at best. It is not something I can just
do, I am in the 'now' in a stronger sense than I am 'here'.
But, say time travel is possible, we have a futher asymetry in so far as the
idea that time is a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z leads to
paradoxes if we attempt to move around it. Spatial movement does not involve
paradoxes.
I think this is enough to establish an asymetry in nature rather than just
experience.
Regards
Chris.
>From: James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>CC: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
>Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"
>Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700
>
>chris peck wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen;
> >
> > I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are
>provisos.
> > Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
> > navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time
>and it
> > moves onwards in a single direction without anyone’s consent.
>Furthermore,
> > where it possible to move around in time all sorts of paradoxes would
>appear
> > to ensue that just don’t when I traverse the spatial dimensions. I’d
>appeal
> > to an asymmetry between time and space, it is a dimension of sorts, but
>not
> > one that can conceptually swapped with a spatial dimension easily. I
>don’t
> > think the a priori requirements for space will be necessarily the same
>as
> > those for time.
>
>
>
>Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential pre-bias.
>While it is true that we can calculate negative spatial values and not
>identify negative temporal values easily - or at all in some cases - let
>me describe motion in this alternative way for you:
>
>1. All action/motion is never a single dimension but instead, a net-vector.
>(be it spatially evaluated or temporally or both).
>
>therefore, it is quite possible to say that the impression of time
>as a positive single vector is masking its composite dimensional structure
>which it is really made of.
>
>2. Negative spatial distances are calculation illusions, usable only
>because
>we can visually identify a sequence reversal and label the suquences
>alternatively - even though - in a relativistic universe, ALL actions and
>traversals of 'distance' are and can only be done ... positively.
>"Negative" dimension values are conditional computational handwavings.
>
>And again, even spatial traversals are net-vectors. A body in true motion
>through space is ALWAYS in a positive net-vector; the same as
>presumptively ascribed only to time.
>
>Therefore, Time can and undoubtably does have, internal dimesional
>structuring; contrary to the conventional view of it not.
>
>James Rose
>ref:
>"Understanding the Integral Universe" (1972;1992;1995)
>
_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 10:38:51 PDT